Actually the ACW was unusual in that when a side loses a Civil War their leadership generally flees abroad to a non-hostile country and forms a government in exile. Which would then be supported by the host country depending on how much they want to annoy the winners and what concessions they can get for cracking down on them.
AHC/WI: Ex-Confederates Deported Emasse
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
Jubal Early and many others did go down to Mexico after the war. It was quite an interesting journey for him from hard core Unionist arguing before the Virginia convention that secession would a massive crime against human liberty and freedom to being in Mexico City full of endless hated for 'Yankees' for what they did to his state. He was there according to his letters to Lee because he hated the 'Yankees' too much at that point to be able to avoid getting in the way of those who wished to reunify the country.
Jubal Early to RE Lee from Mexico City 1866: "I hate a Yankee this day more than I have ever done & my hatred is increasing every day - So that I think it is better for me to be away, as I should have been an element of discord continually". But I nonetheless, honour the sentiments which govern you and those who follow your example.
the most likely place would be the empire of brazil that was interested in having new agrarian techniques and soldiers through the confederates. in addition to better occupying the south of the country with a loyal population for future disputes and conquest in the southern cone of south america. The vast majority who left the usa after the war went to brazil. +- 20 thousand confederates in OTL
Last edited:
They would have to learn Spanish, and live in countries that did not share their phobia of interracial marriage. They would also have to start again with no land and no political connections. Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Plenty of Confederates ended up across the British Empire, in the white colonies and elsewhere. But nothing like the scale of Brazil (at least as far as I can remember).
One possible POD is a longer/harder New Zealand Land Wars. Whilst the conflict (arguably a series of conflicts) was largely done by the time the Civil War finished, it did carry on for a few more years on a lesser tempo (as a whole). Perhaps if the intensity lasted well past 1865 to the late 1860s then there may have been opportunity for trained soldiers in larger numbers. The NZ colonial government had long tried to import settlers to act as soldiers too.
One possible POD is a longer/harder New Zealand Land Wars. Whilst the conflict (arguably a series of conflicts) was largely done by the time the Civil War finished, it did carry on for a few more years on a lesser tempo (as a whole). Perhaps if the intensity lasted well past 1865 to the late 1860s then there may have been opportunity for trained soldiers in larger numbers. The NZ colonial government had long tried to import settlers to act as soldiers too.
maybe a brazil with more confederate tendencies?
Some things like having children with other ethnic groups is part of Brazilian culture, but maybe a greater martial focus,greater use of Latin, greater desire for expansion, worst relations with usa, etc.
With slavery not being ended with a document, but being slowly smothered. The confederates who went to brazil were absorbed with little influence in the country, but with a large migration the country will have a greater influence.
Confederate colonies were made up of Confederate refugees who were displaced or fled their homes during or immediately after the American Civil War. They migrated to various countries, but especially Brazil, where slavery remained legal, and to a lesser extent Mexico and British Honduras (modern Belize).
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_colonies
What quantitatively restrictive immigration bill was proposed when, by whom, proposing what, historically supported by whom, in OTL? If no bill was put forward, did any civic organization or author propose hypothetical legislation and acquire any positive public comment, support, or lobbying towards politicians?
President Cleveland Vetoes a Law Restricting Immigration · SHEC: Resources for Teachers
Primary resources, classroom activities, graphic organizers and lesson plans produced by the American Social History Project designed for use in K-12 classrooms.
shec.ashp.cuny.edu
I feel like deportation or maximal Confederate exodus would likely work best if there were a fairly nearby and distinct place of exile to make it work- perhaps a French backed trans-Mississippi or Texas, or Florida rump-CSA, or a prewar established filibuster state in Mexico (Baja or Sonora, or maybe, for an alternate twist- a republic of Rio Grande) or Nicaragua that gets set up and somehow survives through the war. The trick is that a USA able to reconquer the main body of any CSA, should also be able to re-conquer any of its peripheries. The Union may lack a similar commitment to conquering/absorbing a filibuster state in Mexico or Central America that had never been accepted into the Union. Odds would still be it would want the filibuster regime overthrown or restored to republican Mexico or native rule, but if that doesn't happen, filibuster-land could be a convenient dumping ground for irreconcilable Rebs.
I don't know quite how you could go about applying it to the American context, but the Syrian civil war of the 21st century has seen an interesting on-again/off-again, stop-/start pattern where the central government retakes rebel held areas bite by bite. It does so harshly, but it has several times allowed enemy fighters, leaders and supporting populations safe passage to fleet to remaining rebel held areas, as a pragmatic method to hold down the casualties the government would incur by taking the territory by storm from trapped rebels. In this way, the regime has "corralled" rebels into fewer and fewer areas, rebels have survived to live/fight another day, and the regime has had an easier, cleaner way to control reoccupied territory.
Of course the 21st century Syrian civil war is much more internationalized, with Syria being a weaker state, relying on foreign patronage. I lack the creativity/imagination to impose a similar process on the United States Civil War.
I don't know quite how you could go about applying it to the American context, but the Syrian civil war of the 21st century has seen an interesting on-again/off-again, stop-/start pattern where the central government retakes rebel held areas bite by bite. It does so harshly, but it has several times allowed enemy fighters, leaders and supporting populations safe passage to fleet to remaining rebel held areas, as a pragmatic method to hold down the casualties the government would incur by taking the territory by storm from trapped rebels. In this way, the regime has "corralled" rebels into fewer and fewer areas, rebels have survived to live/fight another day, and the regime has had an easier, cleaner way to control reoccupied territory.
Of course the 21st century Syrian civil war is much more internationalized, with Syria being a weaker state, relying on foreign patronage. I lack the creativity/imagination to impose a similar process on the United States Civil War.
Depends on what the TL is shooting for. A vaguely defined decentralized diaspora community (i.e. the White Russians, only with less sympathy) is a different thing from a Confederate 'Taiwan'.
Very true, good point. I guess I was defining it in terms of "Confederate Taiwan". For one of those, one of the filibuster states would be best, if you could have one succeed, put a butterfly net over it, have it not get annexed by the US but still survive, survive the Mexican Civil War and French intervention, and have the outcome of the US Civil War work the same way. William Walker tried *very* short-lived filibuster states in Baja and Sonora, and longer, but still brief ones in Nicaragua. He might have had a chance to do better in the latter, at least for a while, if he hadn't gotten on the wrong side of Cornelius Vanderbilt. But, of everything I suggested, I think that if the Rio Grande Republic of Nuevo León and Tamaulipas could have been kept independent with filibuster support, it had the most potential to be attractive for Confederate mass migration, and continuation of the Confederate way of life, especially by Louisianans and Texans.
69420
Banned
It's a problem of historiography. It's called a civil war though in meaning it was more a rebellion or war of secession. In general parlance civil war is a war between factions over administration of a country, hence why the leadership has to flee abroad, there's no space or place for them in the postwar state of affairs. The American Civil War doesn't fit the bill, and there was definitely space and place for ex-Confederate (elite)s in the postwar state of affairs leading their "people" in reconciliation with the rest of the country.
Whoever said anything about ethnic cleansing? It's about expulsion based on treason, not ethnicity. There were plenty of Southern white patriots who were loyal Americans and fought for the United States. The traitors demeaned them as "scallawags". They would have been quite safe.
@Enigmajones's suggestion of Belize is interesting. They already speak English plus there's tons of incredible potential for a Confederate remnant being just across the Gulf from Haiti 🤔
It would result in a lot of Southern children being brought up by their mothers (who couldn't be deported unless they agreed to accompany their husbands). Even if they did so, their American born offspring (at least those too young to have served in the CS forces) could not be prevented from returning.
A lot of land may of course have been acquired by Carpetbaggers, but many even of them would be racially conservative and their Southern-born children would probably be just as racist as the ex-Rebs.
Incidentally, would Blacks still get the vote in this situation? The main reason for doing it was to prevent ex-Rebs regaining power in the South, and if they have all been deported, this does not arise. So there's no reason for Congress to raise an issue which was controversial even in the North.
A lot of land may of course have been acquired by Carpetbaggers, but many even of them would be racially conservative and their Southern-born children would probably be just as racist as the ex-Rebs.
Incidentally, would Blacks still get the vote in this situation? The main reason for doing it was to prevent ex-Rebs regaining power in the South, and if they have all been deported, this does not arise. So there's no reason for Congress to raise an issue which was controversial even in the North.
Last edited:
We have good reason to be.
The main purpose of Reconstruction was to create Southern state governments who could be relied on to be loyal to the US. Once it became clear that the ex-Rebs had given up on secession and would *be* perfectly loyal as long as they got their own way about race relations, there was no further point in promoting Black rights, and the North (quite sensibly from their pov) quietly abandoned it.
Oh, and it is entirely possible for Reconstruction to go differently. Had the Southerners been a bit smarter, and not passed Black Codes or elected prominent Rebs to Congress, they might well have been re-admitted w/o having to give Freedmen the vote. That wold have been a *very* different Reconstruction - just not the way you presumably have in mind
The Wade-Davis Bill could change that. So could the SlaughterHouse Cases. And the immigration restrictions previously mentioned (Although they are after the period). The Fifteenth Amendment was supposed to be more radical. (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/grant-fifteenth/). There's a lot of PODs but let's stick also with the Lodge Bill, which would combat disenfranchisement in the South.
Frankly, it seems like people who are too skeptical of Reconstruction tend to see OTL as the best-case scenario, when it probably is one of the worst.
Also your second paragraph is very implausible. Why would Southerners NOT elect Rebs? And the Black Codes could be combated but I agree that the South would want to implement it because they feared the upsetting of the status quo